In Andrews v. Pa Afm Sirius Xm Radio, No. 18-55169, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23670 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that a used car stated no claim under the DPPA against Sirius radio. The facts were as follows: On January 14, 2017, Andrews purchased a pre-owned 2012 Chevy Equinox from Auto… Read More
Severson's own Joseph Guzzetta will moderate a panel of experts for The Rutter Group on the California Consumer Privacy Act. The panel will consist of Mr. Guzzetta of the Firm's San Francisco office, Payal Mehra, the Senior Director of Privacy of RingCentral; and Rick Arney, Boardmember of Californians for Consumer Privacy and co-Author of the California Consumer Privacy Act. A… Read More
In Izor v. Abacus Data Sys., No. 19-cv-01057-HSG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130865, at *6-9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019), Judge Gilliam refused to stay a TCPA case under the Primary Jurisdiction doctrine. "The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of… Read More
In In re Google Inc., No. 17-1480, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23467, at *2-5 (3d Cir. Aug. 6, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded the Google class action "cy-pres only" settlement back to the District Court for further evaluation. The defendant, Google Inc., created a web browser "cookie" that tracks an internet user's data (think following… Read More
A copy of the Firm’s bulletin on AB 1821, the Lafferty decision, and the FTC Holder Rule can be found here: For information, please contact the authors Mark Lonergan at mdl@severson.com. Read More
In Galea v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2:19-cv-00386-JAM-AC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129028 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019), Judge Mendez addressed the proper reporting of Chapter 13 bankrupt accounts. Galea filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in September 2012. FAC ¶ 39. Over the next five years, she made all the payments required under her bankruptcy plan. FAC ¶¶ 42-49.… Read More
In re Brinker Data Incident Litig., No. 3:18-cv-686-J-32MCR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128573 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2019), Judge Corrigan allowed a data-breach class action to proceed. Hackers accessed Brinker's data network and installed malware on point-of-sale ("POS") systems at many Chili's restaurants, which Brinker owns, develops, operates, and franchises. Brinker publicly announced the breach on May 12, 2018, stating: ”On May… Read More
In Marna Paintsil Anning v. Capital One Auto Fin., No. 19-cv-01686-KAW, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128039, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2019) , Judge Westmore said that an FCRA Plaintiff can get past the pleadings on an FCRA Re-investigation claim where the Plaintiff can allege specific inaccuracies with reporting, no response from regarding the dispute, and that the credit… Read More
In Shuckett v. DialAmerica Mktg., No. 17cv2073-LAB (KSC), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127049, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 2019), Judge Burns dismissed a TCPA plaintiff's claim for lack of standing because the TCPA Plaintiff was not aware of the violative call at the time that it was made. Although the Court previously determined that Shuckett's missed call was a… Read More
In Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., No. S246490, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 5696, at *1 (July 29, 2019), the California Supreme Court followed the Seventh Circuit's decision in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC (7th Cir. 2015) 795 F.3d 654, finding that in California the "ascertainability" requirement is satisfied so long as the class definition is stated in terms of objective characteristics… Read More
In Swartzlander v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., LP, No. 19cv580-WQH-BGS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127053, at *3-9 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2019), Judge Hayes dismissed an FDCPA Plaintiff's claimed premised on collection letters sent to her counsel. Defendant contends that communications to a consumer's attorney are not actionable under the FDCPA, as determined by the Court of Appeals in the controlling case… Read More
In Timlick v. Ncb Mgmt. Servs., No. A152467, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4895 (July 23, 2019), the Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision applied the Rosenthal Act’s cure provision to a type-size violation. Plaintiff argues that section 1788.30(d)'s cure provision does not apply to NCB's type-size violation for the following reasons. First, section 1788.30(d) was repealed when the… Read More
In Golan v. FreeEats.com, Inc., No. 17-3156, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21015 (8th Cir. July 16, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reduced an aggregate TCPA verdict on due process grounds. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Leininger and the other defendants. The district court entered judgment against ccAdvertising based on its prior grant… Read More
On July 12, the Governor chartered AB 1821, which seeks to overturn Lafferty’s cap on the Holder Rule. AB 1821 adds Civil Code 1459.5 to the Civil Code, which now states A plaintiff who prevails on a cause of action against a defendant named pursuant to Title 16, Part 433 of the Code of Federal Regulations or any successor thereto, or… Read More
In Murillo v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos & Westlake Servs., Llc, No. 3:17-CV-1883 (VLB), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117043 (D. Conn. July 15, 2019), Judge Bryant confirmed a runaway arbitration award against a car dealer. The parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes before the American Dispute Resolution Center ("ADR") as a desk arbitration and under the American Arbitration Association… Read More
In Dixon v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., No. 19-30123, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20319 (5th Cir. July 9, 2019), the Court of Appeals held that GM Financial’s repossession was proper. GM Financial submitted the following unrebutted summary-judgment evidence showing it complied with these requirements before repossessing Dixon's car: Dixon's car lease—proving that it was a month-to-month lease. Dixon's payment record—establishing that… Read More
In Donald Cable v. Midland Funding, No. 3:19-CV-00015-GFVT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115597 (E.D. Ky. July 11, 2019), Judge Van Tatenhove dismissed an FCRA claim. The Complaint acknowledges that CCU was notified of Mr. Cable's dispute and CCU subsequently verified the debt with the credit reporting agencies, [R. 1 at ¶¶ 30-31], but leaves the Court left to guess as… Read More
In Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins, No. D072299, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 603, at *12-15 (Ct. App. July 1, 2019), the California Court of Appeal addressed the evidence necessary to prove up a credit card debt in a debt collection action. Assuming without deciding that California law applies, a party may accept a contract by conduct, as well as… Read More
In Muzyka v. Rash Curtis & Assocs., No. 2:18-cv-01097 WBS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111795, at *12-14 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 2019), Judge Shubb denied summary judgment to a debt collector on a call-volume case. Defendant is correct that many district courts considering Section 1692d(5) claims have granted summary judgment for defendants where there is a high volume of calls… Read More
In Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 17-17221, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19476 (9th Cir. June 28, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the F.A.A. does not pre-empt the California Supreme Court’s McGill decision. The Court of Appeals summarized its decision as follows: The panel affirmed the district court's denial of Rent-A-Center's motion to compel arbitration… Read More
